The Linear Test World Champions

We're indebted to a gentleman called John Birch who, taking the first ever test as his start, has proposed a theoretical test world championship belt similar to the ones in boxing, whereby you become world champions simply by beating the existing champions. A lot less complex a method than the ICC test rankings, certainly.

Amazingly, Zimbabwe were once the linear world champs by virtue of their win over India (the Indians having claimed the title by beating Oz in their 97/98 home series), but NZ have never held the title & SA haven't for over 100 years.

The site was last updated in 2001, when India again became champions with a home win over Australia, so I've taken the liberty of updating the title holders:

"The PFA does not represent players when they have broken the law and been convicted on non-football matters."- Gordon Taylor in 2009 following Marlon King's release after a prison sentence for sexual assault & ABH

Tried something like this a couple of months back after reading someone (Goughy?) say something about considering a side world champions after they beat the incumbents away from home. Not entirely sure about the accuracy, but came out with this:

Amazingly, Zimbabwe were once the linear world champs by virtue of their win over India (the Indians having claimed the title by beating Oz in their 97/98 home series), but NZ have never held the title

India world champions!

We're indebted to a gentleman called John Birch who, taking the first ever test as his start, has proposed a theoretical test world championship belt similar to the ones in boxing, whereby you become world champions simply by beating the existing champions. A lot less complex a method than the ICC test rankings, certainly.

Amazingly, Zimbabwe were once the linear world champs by virtue of their win over India (the Indians having claimed the title by beating Oz in their 97/98 home series), but NZ have never held the title & SA haven't for over 100 years.

The site was last updated in 2001, when India again became champions with a home win over Australia, so I've taken the liberty of updating the title holders:

As we can see, India are not only the no.1 test side in the ICC rankings, but also the current linear world champs having wrested the crown from Oz by winning the Border/Gavaskar series in 2008 and successfully defending their crown 4 times since.

Both interesting and somewhat depressing to hear that New Zealand have never been the holders of the "world test champion title" on such a list, yet even Zimbabwe have managed it. For the record I do prefer Goughy's list and criteria that to take the title, a side must win away from home in Ranfurly Shield style.

Haha, ****. Just realised that Steds did this exact same thing earlier in the thread.

At least you've ensured that England no onger have the shortest reign

Not sure about all of this, tbh. Granted anything to streamline the current situation is worth discussing, but the above just seem too open to rogue results. I've not seen a lot to change my view that the test championship is either pointless because it's blatantly obvious who the best side is or meaningless because the top sides are too close to call.

It's not meaningless if that's the case because it gives teams something to aim for. If a 3-0 result means a team jumps up in the rankings instead of 2-0, then it may make that team go out in a dead rubber and try and win the match a bit more than they might have if it were simply a dead rubber with no consequences.

"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.